The Chinese Grand Prix has provided a whole host of fascinating talking points.

But in terms of the key decisions taken on the day, they revolve mainly around whether or not to pit for wet tyres in the first few laps and then how to recover from the wrong decision.

And these were game changing decisions, which decided the results of the race.

All smiles when you get it right (McLaren)

The race started in drizzle. Not enough for a change of conditions to be called, so everyone started on the soft compound Bridgestone tyre.

At the end of that lap the first batch of drivers wanting a switch to intermediate tyres came in. This included Adrian Sutil, who started 10th on the grid. By stopping first he gained places over drivers who were in front of him on lap 1, but who delayed their stop for intermediates to Lap 2, such as Schumacher, Vettel, Webber and Hamilton. Sutil was 8th and ahead of all those drivers once everyone who was pitting for inters had made their stops.

He probably thought that he would be further up than that, but this was the point at which the strategists realised that drivers like Button, Rosberg, Kovalainen and the Renault pair were not going to stop for wet tyres.

As we would see all day, if conditions changed and a decision needed to be made, the early adopters were usually the ones who gained from it.

It is worth pausing to consider the merits for a team of splitting the strategies at this point, bringing one driver in for intermediate tyres and leaving the other one out on track.

McLaren did this, as did Mercedes. In McLaren’s case the driver who made the wrong choice – Hamilton – still managed to get onto the podium, thanks to the intervention of the safety car. He beat two other drivers, Rosberg and Kubica, who took the correct option of staying out on dry tyres.

A split strategy like this is always hard for a team to take, unless one of the drivers is up for the risky option, as Button was in this case, because no-one wants to lose out.

In the case of Shanghai the wet weather looked set to stay, in other words there was no indication in the data the teams were studying to suggest that it was a passing shower, rather that drizzle and light rain would persist. So staying out in the face of that evidence was a risky decision.

Right choice in Malaysia, wrong one in China

Championship contenders Red Bull and Ferrari chose not to take the more adventurous approach and it cost them both. They ended up making twice as many pit stops as the winner. Alonso, who also lost time for a jumped start penalty, finished fourth and Massa ninth, losing the lead of the drivers’ and constructors’ championships in the process. Red Bull turned a front row lock-out in qualifying into 6th and 8th places.

It is quite interesting to see the quote from Alonso after the race where he explained how he and Ferrari arrived at their decision, “It was a decision taken by everyone, consulting via radio,” he said. “The winning decision was taken by Button. I do not know if we would have been capable of making the same choice. ”

What was it like in that moment when teams had to decide whether to leave one of their cars out on slicks? Speaking to engineers, it was quite surprising that the slicks worked in those conditions.

The track was quite warm before the light rain had started falling and the water that fell must have evaporated off the surface quite quickly.

Either way, after only one lap on the intermediate, Schumacher realised that he had made a mistake and pitted to refit slicks. He was the earliest adopter of this plan and was followed a lap later by Alonso, Barrichello, Hamilton and Vettel. By making the early call Schumacher went from 13th place to 6th. And whereas Hamilton, for example, was 51 seconds adrift of the leader by lap 7, Schumacher was only 38 seconds adrift, despite having been just ahead of Hamilton before making that second stop.

The other key decision was whether to go with the soft or the hard tyre at that second stop. There was a real mixture of choices here. Both Red Bulls went for hard, but struggled to warm them up. Hamilton went for hard too and was immediately almost a second faster, ripping through the two Red Bull cars in quick succession. His success on the hard tyre, coupled with the good fortune of a safety car, which took him from 47 seconds behind the leader to just 5 seconds behind, was the foundation of his recovery from that early wrong decision on tyres.

The hard proved to be the right choice in that situation, once they were up to temperature. Schumacher, Sutil and the Ferrari drivers went for soft, but then found that they didn’t last. The soft tyre only seemed to endure on Sunday afternoon for the drivers who used them from the start.

The problem all the runners on new softs then suffered from, but Schumacher worst of all, was left front graining as there are five corners in Shanghai, which really hammer the left front tyre.

All in all a big day for decision making and it was the key to success. As the winner, Jenson Button said after the race, “It was a tricky race out there and again we called it right and it means a lot. It is not just about being quick.”

I think what alonso meant is that given the informations the team had which suggested it would rain for a while, he wouldn't have taken the same decision as BUTTON & ROSBERG.

Rosberg decision was understandable because with his gamble, he went for either the victory or somewhere deep in the midfield. A victory is important for MERCEDES on their 1st year and given their pace only a gamble or extraordinary circumstances will give them their victory.

Jenson's is less logical given the informations the teams had at that moment. When people stopped for intermediate they were better than slicks and meteo radar suggested the rain would continue, so Jenson's decision is based on a route he's taken before and which consisted of him going a different path than the others (particularly Hamilton) in order to either win it all or lose it all. In this race he's been lucky along Rosberg.

It wasn't luck; in those conditions Button's just very good at knowing where the grip is and has a very good feel for the car. This isn't just something he can do in a good car either, in 2007/08 in a dire Honda he would shine in that sort of weather, not to mention his first win in '06......

James's old mate Martin Brundle always says you should forget about trying to anticipate what the track conditions will be later, and just try to be on the right tyres for right now. That was exactly what Button did, and Brundle's advice turned out to be the right choice on this occasion.

The runners who swapped to inters were assuming that the track was going to get wetter (well either that, or they made a misjudgement about how wet the track was at that point).

from days gone by the decision was delayed until the lap when the times reach the switch over point. that doesn't seem to be the case nowadays. But if what you say about Brundle is true then it makes sense ie drive until you feel the tyres starting to go away from you then pit on that lap - which was what they used to do in the past and which is what Jensen has done twice this year - why would the other drivers think things have changed from that conventional wisdom? I remember Barichello's first win in Germany - he stayed with the dry tires throughout the rain to the end of the race! Crazy b****** !!! One of the most exciting drives in the rain :))

I think that for most cars out there, it was the switch over point, they thought it was going to be faster on the intermediates - also it is tactically advantageous to stop first because of you are lucky or have a good lap you can jump quite a few people if they pit after you.

The question is IMHO whether you have enough car control, "touch", or whatever you want to call it, to make the slicks work, or at least to stay out that bit longer that allows you to make a more informed decision about the weather development. Luck is involved, but when others pitted, Button obviously felt secure enough to stay out on slicks, and that is ability, too.

Even if he was 100% sure he would control the car with heavier rain, it was a gamble because once it starts raining heavier he would loose so much time in that extra lap that he will find himself way down the midfield if not at the back.

"secure" meaning that he wanted to see what's going to happened in the next couple of laps or 4-5 minutes in terms of weather and the drivers that had already pitted for inters.... That's why he was referring to the weather....

It was a gamble with the rain, because if there would have started a heavier rain, everything at that point would have been lost... as simple as that....

"secure" with slicks when it rains is a relative term.... was not like he knew for sure.... it was like fortunetelling....

From your briefing James, you kind of pointed out that JENSON was lucky as nothing suggested that the rain would stop.

So is it JENSON's strategy to go the opposite path of everyone else and especially his team mate in order to gain a lot or lose a lot. He is kind of going to opposite directions on each occasion in order to beat the others using strategy and not raw pace as a differentiator.

It is now 3 races in a row where JENSON either pits the 1st (AUSTRALIA it worked, MALAISIA it didn't work) or he doesn't pit (CHINA it worked). By doing so, he is proving more cerebral than HAMILTON (which isn't that difficult to be quiet honest) and smarter than everybody else. It wasn't smartness all the way though :

- in AUSTRALIA he struggled so he took the gamble and it worked

- in MALAISIA he struggled so he took the gamble and it didn't work as his 2nd set of tyres had to last so long that he was overtaken later on by MASSA and almost by ALONSO eventhough the spaniard was struggling with his gearbox

- in CHINA I don't know how he took the gamble but it worked, I think that on this occasion he was lucky as nothing indicated the rain was stopping & he won't be as lucky everytime.

Later on he showed he could pull a gap on hamilton on intermidates as well. So it was a great race from his perspective in terms of speed & strategy. Well done JENSON !

So right now JENSON is 3 to 1 in qualy and 2 to 0 in victories against LEWIS. I must confess that I take a lot of pleasure from that as I hate the arrogant HAMILTON. I've seen him giving his thoughts on BBC and how he was happy for JENSON. Adding hypocrisy to arrogance won't make him any good.

Luckily for HAMILTON, dull races will be back sooner or later and I fear for JENSON that on raw pace HAMILTON is quicker particularly on race pace. In these races, there are no smart calls to be made so looking forward to that. But what if JENSON keeps on leading under those circumstances !

I agree with almost everything you said, except your Malaysia analysis. Jenson was behind 2 Toro Rosos and 2 Ferraris, in a situation where overtaking would be almost impossible (4 cars too close to one another), his best option was to pit early, and it worked: after a while, he was in front of those 4 cars. Of corse, Massa was abble to overtake him later, but still, I think Button did a good thing pitting early.

you are dreaming he's 5 tenths behind his team mate, he's too old that's it. I mean when you're forty you loose your reflexes and your sharpness. Mohamed Ali was never the same boxer after 3 years out of boxing.... You can train as much as you want, you can be as fit as you want but youth is unrecoverable.

Everyone is saying Schumacher's too old but I disagree. I think a large factor is that he's never had to face conditions like this before and win. He is up against an amazing field of talent like never before, he has no contractual team number one position, no submissive team mate, no FIA favoritism and as far as I can tell he hasn't started wheel banging or cheating this season.

I'm not in the slightest bit surprised to see him where he is. Situation normal.

Even the freit is back in spain today, from spain trucks will carry every team's equipment towards their headquarters and that's the most important thing.

As for crews, I know FERRARI tried to rent a charter a couple of days ago without success but they should have succeeded by now.

As for drivers, many among them had to travel in economic class through DUBAI, among them MASSA, ALONSO & FISICHELLA.

I heard Ross BRAWN was one of the first to land in england, he had to take multiple flights till NICE where he rent a car towards the north of FRANCE, there he met with his own car and from there towards ENGLAND.

The BBC radio crew made it to NICE as well and from there rent a car with ANTHONY DAVIDSON as a driver. They made NICE CALAIS in 9H30 which should have been scary for the passengers. Luckily for them, french police didn't spot them. I know MONTOYA and Olivier PANIS get caught overspeeding and lost their driving licenses in FRANCE.

With respect, you state that Hamilton was 1 second faster than the Redbulls and at the same time he ripped passed them!

I suggest that Hamilton ripping through the field had far more to do with Hamilton's amazing skill in those conditions than a 1 second advantage and it was this that gave us, the TV viewers such an exciting race to watch.

A skilled F1 driver can hold off a faster car with ease when the car chasing is only a second or so faster though for some reason they could not hold Hamilton back.

On Schumacher I am of the view he is a spent force and that he'll never recover his former glory days if ever they really were that (not so easy when your team mate doesn't yield and other drivers are just as hard on track is it)?

When you got an F-duct, it makes it easier for overtaking even when you are only a bit quicker than the driver ahead of you. Once someone puts a performant F-duct device and finds Hamilton behind him, we'll see how easy it is for him to overtake.

As for Schumi, I'm not far from agreeing with you. If by midseason, he's not faster than ROSBERG, it's over !!!!

Yep Button deserved that win as he did everything absolutely faultless. The thing I’m finding a bit hard to understand that how Button is able to judge the weather so perfectly when it comes to tyre choice. As I heard from the broadcast it was Button’s choice to change the tyre in Australia. It was also his call on the tyres in China. Obviously it is working for him. Anyhow it was a great drive and surely the decisive moments of his wins this season up to date. But I wonder if it really is just a gamble he took in both Australia & China!!! The gambles taken by Schumacher or any other driver just didn’t work. Safety car surely worked for Lewis. Safety car isn’t his fault anyway.

Changeable weather & safety cars never show the true pace of a race car. Vettel’s standing in the point table has been half compromised by the reliability issue & the other half because of the changeable condition. From lap 1 to lap 30 it was nearly impossible to judge who really was going to be the winner in the Chinese grand prix, and also throughout the race anybody else with any point chances. The cars were all over the place in terms of track position. What a ‘WACKY’ season!!! Cars looked so much closer in the pre season than they actually are. Even in 2008 only 3/10ths covered the top ten in most races. And here it is like a full second gap between the pole sitter and the 5th/6th place. Well, let’s see what happens in Catalunya. Let's hope the teams don't get stuck in China because of the volcanic ashes until then

Its not really judging the weather, more that he was lucky thinking that it might not rain too much harder...and he is very good at finding grip in the rain in marginal situations - that is where his strength lies, having the confidence in dodgy situations that as long as the weather doesn't deteriorate he can stay out.

Henry I couldn't agree more with what you've said. Jake has a made a point suggesting the gap is much bigger between teams this year relatively to last year and it's a shame in a way.

Now RedBull Ferrari & Mclaren + Rosberg know the 7 first sports on the grid are for them to share, they know they will easily reach the last part of qualifying unless something weird occurs. As for the race, we've been blessed with rain so far. But I fear for the coming races, if skies remain blue, the final results would like like the starting grid safe for some reliabily issues and some mistakes during pit stops or on the track.

I'm sure a lot of readers as well you James have read this article by Martin Brundle. Still thought I'll share the link with everybody. This article sums up the race and the outcome from the most independent view possible. Lets see what the Alonso, Button, Vettel & Hamilton fans think about this.

I'm a Button and Hamilton fan, and I thought Martin was not too harsh.

I didnt think Jenson should have slowed right down personally, but I dont read the rule book as to whether it is actually contravening any rules or not.

On Lewis/Seb in the pitlane, whether they both came out of the pit box at broadly similar times, you cant have them side by side and edging towards the air hose doing 50Km per hour.

Lewis right front wheel missed the airlines by what looked like no more than 12 inches, if that he caught in his suspension at best it would have ripped a loan of lines down into the pitlane, and at worst could have diverted his car towards

I think what Martin is looking for is a bit of common sense from drivers, i.e one actually giving way.

I just think racing should be done on the track, and not in the pits personally where people can get injured.

I have to disagre with Martin on both counts here and i got the impresion coultard did on the red button as well.

The Button incident is telling in that the cars imediatley behind him did not have a problem it was only the ones further down the pack had problems. As Coulthard said during the comentry it is the resposability of the drivers to watch what is going on and react accordingly.

Vettal and Hamilton incident, To impose a grid penalty the stewards would have to quote the rule that had been broken nobody to date (including Brundel)has stated which rule was in fact breached.

I think the stewards got it right on both counts but also expect the rules to be clarified and discussed in the next drivers meeting (along with the pit lane entry rules massa/alonso,hamilton/vettel)

Dont punish UNTIL rules are in place and have been breached well done stewards

He sounds whiney. Former mcclaren indeed Martin, there's a reason it's former and that's because he can't hack it and should leave the driving to the drivers. I saw great racing so far and excessive penalties would have ruined it.

I dont mean to sound like a Hamilton fanboy but saying "Hamilton got on the podium thanks to the safety car" is not a fair account of what happened. The safety car did help, but he did also overtake 12 cars.

without safety car it was 100% impossible to see him catch the podium.

Besides, another driver had a race as great as hamilton with overtaking and so on and it is FERNANDO ALONSO. He had harder circumstances with a drive through penalty and he didn't have an F-duct which makes his car quicker on straits which should help when it comes to overtaking

The F-Duct does not actually give the McLaren as much of a straight line speed advantage as you think, as the advantage has allowed them to put more wing on the car. It may still be one of the quickest down the straight but not that advantageous. Also Fernando's drive through was his own fault. Still, he drove very well.

With the F-Duct they had more straight line speed than most other teams. As for the teams with similar top speeds, they had to sacrifice downforce and as a consequence they compromised their speed in the twisty sections and in the corners leading to the straights. So in any case the F-Duct is such an advantage. Well done McLaren more than HAMILTON eventhough he's very special when it comes to overtaking.

Without SC there was a slim chance for him to get on the podium. He had gap to Kubica at least 35 seconds. Second SC was deployed at circa 28 lap out of 56 and he was lapping Kubica almost 2second per lap. Thus he could catch Kubica 8-10 laps before finish. Given his tyres were tired enough, whilst Kubica would look after his tyres, passing past Kubica would be difficult however probable.

Not really relevant to this post but can't get in touch with you any other way (your contact e-mail is bouncing mails). So, just wanted to know what you make of Schuey's troubled start to the season and especially the disastrous showing in China?

"In the case of Shanghai the wet weather looked set to stay, in other words there was no indication in the data the teams were studying to suggest that it was a passing shower, rather that drizzle and light rain would persist. So staying out in the face of that evidence was a risky decision."

Not completely sure about this? What race was it last year where we had mountains of black cloud overhead, only for it to hold off and ruin the inters? Going by last season and this so far, the best strategy seems to be to wait until conditions on the track actually dictate a tyre change. I can't believe they are getting these forecasts so wrong. Time to go back to a guy in a field or boat a mile away to get the true picture?

James, I am wondering if you could shed some light on the Schumacher situation. It has been said that he had no traction coming out of the corners and why is this affecting him and not Nico, and that there was something wrong car/chassis which is what Norbert Haug alluded to after the race, I simply do not believe that this lack of pace his down to him, as he's too good.

I think he is just rusty personally. If the setup does not suit him and they are making characteristics changes for him for Spain thats fine also, but I dont think there is anything wrong with the car (especially not for all 4 races).

It will be good to know for sure. Schumacher's performance has of course raised the question whether or not he should’ve come back to F1. If we witnessed the same performance by any other driver I don’t think there would’ve been so much fuss. However, there have been only 4 races so far this season. He seems to have problem with working the tyre & struggling for grips a bit. It’s not that Rosberg’s achievements are any less worthy. There’s something not right with Schumacher’s car. That is why Merc is about the change the chassis for him in the next race. I think everything will be fine again as soon as he wins a race or gets on the podium ahead of his much younger team mate.

The decisive moments in this race sadly had little to do with the racing, and everything to do with the stewards ignoring the rulebook and letting drivers away with major infractions. Hamilton, Button and Vettel all broke clear-cut rules (and I say this as a Vettel fan myself). All three drivers should hence have been penalized for their infractions.

Hamilton is particularly egregious by the regularity with which he's breaking rules. He broke no less than three separate clauses of the Appendix L in the last two races, and one clause of the sporting regulations. Button and Vettel both broke one clause of the sporting regulations apiece.

Hamilton should have been penalized under Appendix L to the International Sporting Code, Articles 2c and 4d, which prohibit leaving the track and gaining an advantage, or crossing the line separating track and pit entry without force majeure. He broke both rules by passing the pit entry and then backtracking across the grass to the pit. He should have been penalized under the Sporting Regulations, article 23j, which forbids unsafe release from pit stop, since Vettel's car was already passing when he was released from his stop. Finally, at the previous race he should have been penalized under Article 2b of Appendix L, which forbids weaving to defend a position (which is why Hamilton wanted to break the tow - so he couldn't be passed at the next corner).

Button should have been penalized under the Sporting Regulations, article 40.11, which forbids erratic braking or maneuvers likely to endanger other drivers or impede the restart, once the safety car turns its lights off. He broke this rule by slowing so much under the safety car that other drivers were forced to leave the track to avoid collisions.

Vettel should have been penalized under the Sporting Regulations, article 40.5, which forbids any car from driving unnecessarily slowly on the track, pit entry or pit lane while the safety car is deployed. This rule was broken when he deliberately held up the cars behind him to gain advantage in the stacked pitstop.

The rules are there for a reason, and if they're not going to be enforced, they should be removed. Most of these rules are there for reasons of either safety or sporting fairness, and allowing them to be broken without penalty (and in most cases without even being investigated, even when the violation was so clear that the TV director made a point of showing the infraction in replay) makes a mockery of the sport.

Hamilton in particular shouldn't have been let away with anything, just one race after he'd already made an infraction of the rules so bad that fellow drivers who weren't even involved in the incident felt the need to discuss his behaviour both in their pre-race briefing and in the media.

Did you see the rearward replay from Button's car at the safety car restart? It made it quite clear that there was no erratic braking or anything that could be interpreted as a maneuver.

He braked quite early for the hairpin (but smoothly and progressively), was fairly slow round it, and did not accelerate at full speed out of it. Basically he seemed to be continuing at safety car speed after the safety car had left the track, which surely cannot be considered an offence when safety car conditions still technically apply.

The problem was that other drivers were expecting him to bolt earlier, and were jockeying for position to try to pass one another at the restart. I would say that was a problem with their expectations. The rules don't say, or imply, that the leader must resume racing speed immediately after the safety car has left the track. The leader becomes the safety car, and is allowed to decide when to accelerate back up to racing speed.

So far, no major accidents has occurred and no one has been hurt yet. When it happens, it can be a bit late but that's just human nature. Good for the fans without any interference but bad for the written rules not executed. I'd go for the rulebook.

So is Alonso guilty too when he passed Massa at the entrance of the pit?, as I'm supporting Alonso. Then there's a term in life we use "give and take". We are the fans, and we do need some fair answers too.

Huw and Spencer replies are pathetic. I mean if each time drivers escape penalties and get only reprimands, they will have no more respect for the rules.

I don't remember seeing any driver wave the way hamilton did with PETROV but given that everybody considers PETROV as rubbish being there only to fill the grid, Hamilton could do whatever he wants. In Shanghai the mistake wasn't his but was his team's. His mistake was to not back off and let VETTEL lead the way in the pit lane. He should have been penalised twice yet he escapes with nothing.

The other drivers should have been penalised as well as knoxploration pointed out. I totally agree with him.

Mate it looks like only you and I respect the rule book. Those two replies weren't researched at all. Not giving penalties for those significant incidents establishes a very bad precedent. I agree with Martin Brundle when he said he wonders how many times drivers will have to make the same mistakes until they don't get away with those kind of behaviours. Button also slowed the car behind the safety car for no reason what so ever. The biggest problem is that somebody else will be penalized sooner or later for similiar or even less significant reasons. I'm with you and knoxploration on this. There's no difference between creating a bad examples by the stewards.

I believe most of people who thinks drivers should be penalised due to recent events are blind fold. For the first time Im feeling excited again about F1. The warrior spirit has returned! FIA did a great move by having ex-drivers as stewards, fairer judgement. you can list 6/7 potential contenders for the WC, when did this happened last time? Who was complaining about processional F1? Alonso, Vettel, Button, Hamilton they want to win fellas, as did Prost, Senna, Mansel, Piquet, Schumacher. you cannot drive like a priest. as bernie said: let the men race!!

I think Senna's death back 94, triggered a paranoid movement towards safety, which in most cases lead to unproven rules aimed to guarantee the pilot's physical integrity. Now this paranoia is being questioned in loco, as for many years it has plastered F1. I think we are having an amazing and historical chance to watch water changing direction in F1. some will keep the old mentality and resist to accept that. a last thought: 'there is philosophy within rules, do not look the rule itself, understand its philosophy'

The incident with petrov was not illegal. There are not set rules about breaking the tow, he was not weaving dangerously into a corner, or while petrov was close enough to overtake. Since the incident, the driver have got together and clarified it amongst themselves, however at the time there was no rule against it.

The incident in the pit lane, the issue I have is not that he was released at the same time, (I'm sure the lollipop man made an honest mistake), the problem is Hamilton's decision to drive alongisde Vettel down the pit lane. And Vettel's subsequent decision to push him to the side, both were dangerous and should have had a penalty.

Man....thank God u are not a judge in a criminal court....u guys just don't/can't/aren't able to understand that rules and laws must NOT be followed blindly neither in motorsport nor anywhere else! Judges and stewards always MUST decide taking into account all the relevant facts and CIRCUMSTANCES of every case separately! By saying all what u said, u just showed that u can actually....just read! brain use? 0....anyway, let's hope that the good start to the season's stewarding continues!!

Exactly, I completely agree - laws cannot and should not be followed without space for maneuver - the drivers were not being too dangerous for the most part - the only bit I really had a problem with was Vettel and Hamilton side by side inside the pit lane, but that was an honest mistake by the lollipop man, not a decision to drive dangerously by the drivers. Hamilton should have backed off, Vettel should not have pushed him, and it sets a bit of a precedent. But in my view, the other decisions were the right ones.

Let's forget about who was driving what car. You still think Hamilton & Vettel didn't make unsafe move in the pit lane? You still reckon Button signifactly slowing down the car behind the safety car without any reason what so ever was fine? Well if your answer is 'yes' to both of my questions then it's no point having factual debate. Just check this out for a second

Mate there's a big difference between being biased and good research. The research says that the stewards ignoring the rule book, rain & safety car in key moments decided the outcome of the race. This is probably the simplest research of the race you can ever think of. So, if you reckon the stewards were excellent, I wonder who really is biased

I believe that Hamilton and vettels incident with the release of Hamilton was a racing incident and the stewards made the right move, both cars were released within half a second of each other, the reason Hamilton ended up by the side of vettel is because he spun out of the box, please note however that Hamilton acknowledged this and left both space for vettel and the pit crews, what I do believe was dangerous was vettel squezing Hamilton at this point and pushing him into the pit crews, If a penalty should be handed out than it should go to vettel.

With regards to button slowing down the pack, yes it was extreme but he didn't slap on the brakes, the cars behind him had time to react but didn't expect it, I can't say this is not wrong but rather than a penalty this should be raised and revised at the next drivers safety meeting, isn't that what they are for?

Now the other point mentioned was the "excessive weaving", he was trying to break the tow of the car, there was noone near them on the track, I quite enjoyed that moment and showed what racing truly required, I think people have overreacted with that situation, if he kubica thought it was dangerous to go so he wouldn't have followed him all over the road.

I'm starting to feel that everytime anyone wants to race they are being held back by rules and regulations that are not clear enough and can be interpreted either way, a racing driver will explore any option to get that 0.001 of a second over his competitor, it is up to the fia to clarify what can be done. Michael Schumacher who is now classed as a legend proves that, as does Fernando Alonso

Once understood, it is so simple. It is not some aerodynamic device that will modify the car's beahviour, it only stalls rhe rear wing. I don't think that it is very hard to put on a car, the problem for the teams is to find a way to activate it and desactivate it without using a hole in the cockpit as McLaren did, because their cockpits can't be modified anymore I think and even if it is possible they should go through carsh tests and build new cockpits which is a huge waist of time money and resources. So I thing the problem for the other teams is more linked to figuring out a way of activating and desactating the rear wing stalling process.

For once McLaren finds an idea without cheating ! They are even starting to manufacture their own road cars. The new car is ugly, the engine is german.... I think Ron DENNIS will die envying FERRARI

Why will it be so awesome? just wondering, because in theory McLaren's design will be optimal as they had time to configure it before the car was built, so it should be the easiest to use, and the most efficient. after all, reducing the drag on the rear wing is going to result in a very similar speed change for all cars, its just the manner in which they do it that can be different - McLaren should have the best way.

Mercedes GP is talking about giving Michael a new chassis for the Spanish GP without going into the details of why.....

Could it be a case of a cracked chassis/tub that has kept Michael off the pace, particularly in China?

The same thing happened in Indycar race on Sunday at Long Beach, CA. Graham Rahal had been so far off the pace the whole weekend and apparently the car did not responded to any changes made. Finally it was tracked down to a cracked tub.

It is a bit odd that he has been able to make the right calls so accurately so far, isn't it? Well I think he is just making serious gamble to have the upper hand in the championship early in the season. As we all know gambling is good only when it pays off. Because when we do have dry race it is unlikely that he will have the same result. Then the point advantage will still keep him in the mix

You're wrong Andy. I agree with Jake, Jenson is gambling because once it started raining someone pitted for intermediates and he was the fastest. When almost everyone moved in his footsteps, they did so not because they feared loosing their cars on the damp track but because they know that if it kept raining and they didn't pit they would have lost so many positions.

By keeping on track on slicks a driver gains a couple of pits stops relatively to the pitters if the track dries quickly, but if the track keeps getting wet he might loose up to 20 seconds per lap and he will find himself way down the field.

For someone like Rosberg, Renault or Sauber, the gamble is worth it because they might find themselves in a unique situation where they might win (ROSBERG), get a podium (RENAULT) or some points (SAUBER).

For BUTTON, the gamble might give him a lot if it works (pulling a gap on the championship contenders) but it might backfire and he would end up loosing a lot of points to all championship contenders.

The question is whether he is going for such tactics because he want to take opposite routes to Hamilton (fearing direct opposition) or because he is in a gambling mood or because he follows his instinct. Whatever the reason, it worked beautifully right now but I am sure it could have been the opposite that same day and he would have looked a complete fool.

The good point is Jenson showed he was pulling a gap on Hamilton late in the race on intermediates and that he beat him fair and square in qualy till now.

If he keeps his dominance on his teammate on a dull dry day, I think that Hamilton will take a big hit on his confidence and given his caracter I fear for the mood inside the team.

lewis knew from the previous lap that petrov can pass and he will push for it... and than, he went to erratic driving in front of his direct opponent... if you follow a car that goes right-left-right-left-right, at any speed you need to slow down.... what petrov did was very smart... he followed because it was the only way to keep hamilton in his sight...

It is his behaviour, his arrogance and all his caracter. We are humain after all and when you compare Hamilton catacter to vettel's, button's or raikonen's....

You sense that the guy is not sincere, not authentic in his behavior and his declarations. That's something you don't notice with the others. HAMILTON doesn't want to be the best, he want to be the best and as much he wants to be the star.

He wanna advertise a cool image (sthg he said) while he's far from cool. He wanna hang out with show business stars which no other driver does....

Is he a great driver, of course. Is he a complete package, far from it.

I'm afraid to say that it was not illegal. It has been very extensively debated, but the general conclusion from what I have read on various websites, blogs and on TV coverage, is that he was breaking the tow. Petrov was not in an overtaking position. He was minimum one car length behind. And it was not happening into a corner. There are no set rules on breaking the tow. Since the incident, the drivers have clarified the issue between themselves, in the Shanghai race briefings. And they have agreed that in the future one move is the limit. But crucially it was not illegal at the time, and in the given circumstances it was not really particularly dangerous.

Well mate you sound like a little worked up about all these. I'm not a Hamilton fan at all what so ever either. But I don't hate him. I just think his moves should be looked at very closely & penalized when it is appropriate. He is an excellent driver without any doubt. But that doesn't mean that he should get away with so many insane behaviour on the track (off the track isn't my concern). Vettel, Hamilton & Button all should've been penalized in China. I am not convinced by any means that stewards have done any good by not imposing penalties for those incidents. Unfortunately, the penalties will probably be handed out to other drivers for less significant reason. And that will probably change the outcome of the championship. That's just not fare

Oh yes, what about when Jenson slowed down suddenly during the safety car period and caused all the cars to bunch up, even Lewis went out into the run off area. I thought it was hilarious watching drivers trying to avoid each other. It could have taken out some cars. As much as I like no penalties, but some so called incidents are rather obvious. Can we have fans voting "live" for penalties, but that would be hilarious too, lol.

The only problem Michael Schumacher has is the fact that he is Michael Schumacher.

Being him, it is inevitable that he will always be judged on a different criteria, and the level of praise or criticism for him will also be equally different from others.

Remember though, the reason Ross Brawn hired Schumacher (from his interviews in the past months) was that even after Schumacher's retirement from the sport and at this age, he was able to race against many current top drivers and was able to beat them in the various events they entered outside of F1. This included newly crowned champion Jenson Button, Sebastian Vettel, as well as Felipe Massa.

This year Schumacher was already able to get within 0.045 seconds of Rosberg at the second attempt. Hence there is no doubt that Schumacher HASN'T lost it and he definitely has the potential to beat this kid. Rosberg isn't someone special like Senna or Fangio, he's just an orthodox, fast F1 driver.

But in a way this situation is good for Michael, because in order to rediscover how to win again, he's learning how to lose first. It isn't as much a test of his driving skill as it would a test of his mental reserve, to see if he is able to pick himself up from what would be such a massive fall.

James- I always thought it a brave move by you to throw your blog open to reply's from the public. You see lots of them on the web and they degenerate into a petulant slanging match between the posters. Very unfortunate. If we can keep the personal stuff out of the comments that would be great. This looks like a vintage year for F1 with 3 different winners in the first 4 races. Most of the best drivers are in most of the best cars. Up to 10 different drivers could snatch a win in any particular race. We've all waited a long time

Chris, I've been posting here for quite some time now (since late '08) and I have to say this site is 99.99 (recurring)% free of petulance and slanging matches. Posters tend to disagree on some of the more controversial issues, but it's all adult and mature discussion... most of the time. Which is a big respect to James and to all the posters. People will disagree, that's life... as long as we all respect others opinions, there's no problem 🙂

My feelings re: the China incidents...

I think Vettel and Hamilton are very lucky to get away with just reprimands for their pit-lane duel. I feel they were both released within a second of each other, so no blame lies with the lollipop men... but Hamilton should have conceded ground (he span his wheels and lost the place); Vettel should not have edged over... there are people in that pit-lane, not protected by the tub of their car or by barriers; if those two had hit each other and gone spinning about in the pit-lane, carnage would have ensued - I was not comfortable watching that! The way it's utter madness during pit-stops at the moment... something horrible is going to happen in there and it won't be pretty... thus I felt the penalty should have been more stringent.

As for all the other China incidents; no problem for me. I don't think Button slammed the brakes on at the end of the long straight - I'm with iceman's description of this (see above). Plus, the camera cutting to Hamilton going onto the grass, was far too late to determine Button's actions prior to the hair-pin. Alonso's move on Massa - ha ha - fantastic and cheeky and regardless of the spiel coming from Ferrari; I wouldn't be happy if I were Massa. I think we may see a slightly more forceful Massa, provided he has the pace to be at or near the front. Hamilton and Vettel entering the pits? Well, again it was resolved outside of the actual pit-lane (before the pit-speed restriction line), so no problem for me - they might have taken each other out, but they would not have wiped out a set of engineers.

What else was there... well, tyre choice in inclement weather is always something of a gamble. More rain - Rosberg, the Renault's and Button would have been sat in gravel traps or going so slowly that they'd have been mobbed by those on inters. With hindsight we can all see it was the best choice to stay on the slicks - so good call to those who did.

Bahrain apart, this season has been stunning so far... should it be renamed "Bah! Rain." 😉

I imagine Spain will be dry and we can see who sits where in the pecking order (after updates etc)... Barca unfortunately always provides a procession though.

Kubica is doing a great Job with Renault, and that's reminds me of Heidfeld. I think that the german ended with more points than Kubica in at least one of the last couple of seasons. If he's not better than Kubica, he's very close to him, yet nobody hired him.

He's always had that bad image (relatively to his performances) with both the media and the audience. That leads to a couple of questions :

- why is that ?

- why a team such as hispania racing ends with SENNA(The one who can't die racing given the speed at which he drives) and Shanhock instead of Heidfeld ?

I think people forget Button's first attempt at Spa, it was raining that time too, he dived in the pits for slicks early, made it work, the rest of the field dived in and couldn't make it work, clearly its just a gift he has

Alesi was a real FERRARI Tiffoso, so his decision to move to FERRARI was more an emotional one rather than a calculated one.

I don't think he was that good in the rain, he was good but not special.

When he was in DTM, he was spotted in McLaren Mercedes garage due to his contractual obligations but as soon as he ended his DTM career, you only spot him in FERRARI garage once in the paddock.

As for his rain skills, I remember that Schumi beat him in rainy conditions with BENETTON and when they switched teams the next year Schumi beat him with FERRARI. So is he that good when it rains ?????????

Alesi had signed an option with Williams for 1991 but opted for Ferrari instead. At the time it looked like a good move - Ferrari was fighting McLaren for the title, whereas Williams were very clearly the best of the rest. As it worked out, Ferrari had an awful 1991 season while Williams emerged as title contenders and showed a few glimpses of the form that would see them dominate 1992 and 1993.

Of course, had everyone appreciated just how good Adrian Newey was (Newey's first design for Williams was 1991's FW14) then Alesi's decision might not have taken him to Maranello. But hindsight is 20:20.

If this is a true, I will have an even greater respect for James ALLEN.

When you see how he talked to his team in AUSTRALIA once he knew the extra pit stop was a bad idea, and when you see they way he talked to Ron DENNIS on that famous day when he clashed with ALONSO, what do you expect from that guy ?!

Besides, I don't see what an interview of Hamilton or any other driver will bring as informations safe for Mark Webber who is someone who speaks his mind. The others are there to give you the PR answers they've been taught.

When you consider the post race Briefing, James brought this year + the technical developments he added, that it is a much better piece of informations than a lewis hamilton interview who you end up having reading the team's press release.

Need your assistance. I can't seem to locate the next page comments. Usually it appears at the end of the first page. So did not get a chance to read all comments, which I like to very much. Could it be my computer as I'm on Apple?